S
samaan
Guest
Planten, my posts are long because I explain my arguments using proof and logical reasoning- both are things which you have failed to do yet for me.
I actually read and think about what you post and take time from my day to respond to you in a worthwhile manner. On the other hand, you seem more interested in finding reasons to attack me personally while refusing to deal with what my arguments present.
There you go again attacking me instead of my arguments.
What I have quoted to you, and I will continue to do, come from orthodox Islamic texts accepted by Islam for the past 1400 years. The records of Islamic religious practice and Islamic history, whether you like it or not, comes from these books and scholars, just as Christians have our Saints and Scholars.
I cannot help if you don’t like what the Imams and scholars of Islam millenia before you recorded about Mohammed and Islam. I just present what they say. If you don’t like them, then argue with them, but don’t blame me for what
It seems the only person not trying to understand is you, Planten. The only sources for your arguments has been cherry-picked from the Koran or Hadith supplimented by your own personal views. I’m not interested in your personal views about Islam, nor should you care what I think about Catholicism. I strive to present orthodoxy, whether it’s Catholicism or Islam, and I do so by providing proof and logical reasoning.
Again, you have said that “some verse of the Koran” are covered by the Hadith. Can you actually name some of these “verses” for the purpose of this discussion?
Planten, hadith means “narration.” It comes from the Arabic hadatha, meaning “to speak, narrate, or to converse.” They were called “hadith” because people narrated (hadatha) the tradition of Mohammed to each other; the written corpus is called the Hadith because its the compilation of all these spoken traditions.
Hadith well existed before 832 AD (200 years after Mohammed died). How else did Al-Waqidi write his history of the conquests? How about Abu Minkhaf? Or the famous Imam Malik? Hasan Al-Basri? Ibn Ishaq? They all relied on hadith, and wrote them in their books well before 832 AD.
Bukhari’s hadith collection, like Muslim’s was not compiled until the 10th century. if you mean hadith collections like Bukhari’s, the answer is yes. If you mean hadith as in the sense of Narratives that Moslem scholars used, which I have been trying to describe, the answer is no.
Why don’t you provide these “20 rules” for us instead of constantly talking about them? Maybe it would make for a good debate topic, that is provided you can support your arguments logically and cite your sources
And again, you have failed to explain to me why the sunna is separate from the hadith, let alone more important. I can see you are saying that the hadith was written later as a collection, but the Hadith are exactly what the word means in arabic- “narrations,” oral or not.
As you probably know, in early Islamic history people were taught “a hadith,” which they learned by memory and passed it along to others by word of mouth. They weren’t compiled into bound books until the 9th and 10th centuries, but *the hadith still existed- they were orally transmitted, which are the reports of the tradition, or sunna, of Mohammed. *How can you say that the hadith didn’t exist?
Two words: Your sources?
I have already answered this.
You try referencing a source other than yourself.
